But pricing the downloads is a tricky science that many game publishers, including Microsoft, are still figuring out as they try to balance profit with the risk of alienating gamers who might feel they are being taken advantage of.

I abhor microtransactions. When I first heard the term, I knew this generation was going to be the begining of the nickle and diming to death. EA went that route in record time. I have thus far resisted any tempation to buy add-on content for any of my games. Games this generation are already overpriced, add that onto MS charging to play online and then add-ons and it just becomes too much.

I abhor microtransactions. When I first heard the term, I knew this generation was going to be the begining of the nickle and diming to death. EA went that route in record time. I have thus far resisted any tempation to buy add-on content for any of my games. Games this generation are already overpriced, add that onto MS charging to play online and then add-ons and it just becomes too much.

Click to expand...

I think Tycho said it best in a recent PA podcast: Microsoft's goal here is to create an environment where content has value. One reason is that not every game developer or publisher can afford to create content and give it away, so rather than have a situation where an add-on for one game may cost money, but the same type of add-on for another game is free, pricing is implemented across the board.

This isn't to say that microtransactions aren't abused - they clearly have been in some instances - but I'm not yet ready to crucify the entire concept. I do think that Microsoft could do a better job of ensuring that they don't reflect poorly on the service as a whole.

I'm on Live, but I haven't bought any DLC, and I don't intend to. the only one that's tempting is the Crackdown stuff, but I don't agree with having to pay for stuff that in the past would have most likely been a free patch if it was a PC game.
Still, at least the main game updates are free.

Games this generation are already overpriced, add that onto MS charging to play online and then add-ons and it just becomes too much.

Click to expand...

Massive QFT. I remember back in the day on the PC where you would buy your game for 50, then you could often buy an expansion pack for 20 with a whole new singleplayer experience, new multiplayer, and numerous other add ons. And online play was FREE!

Now these days, everything is being grossly overpriced and then nickel and dimed on top of that.

Massive QFT. I remember back in the day on the PC where you would buy your game for 50, then you could often buy an expansion pack for 20 with a whole new singleplayer experience, new multiplayer, and numerous other add ons. And online play was FREE!

Now these days, everything is being grossly overpriced and then nickel and dimed on top of that.

Click to expand...

With regards to the pricing of PC games and expansions and what not, they are still the same.

By and large the only time you're paying more than $40 - $50 for a game is if it's a director's cut or special edition or whatever they want to call it. (And back in the day there was no concept art, commentary, soundtracks, maps, other goodies, etc. included anyway.) Expansions seem to generally be priced in the $20 - $30 range. Online play is still free unless you're talking about one of the popular MMORPGs. I would say that's a whole different animal all together though. There are a bazillion free player created mods for hundreds of games...

Back in the days of the NES and SNES, console games were usually $50 and went up to $80 for RPGs, so I really don't know how paying $60 15 years later is really that big of a deal. But still, I hate microtransactions for crap that would generally be in game already, and I won't do it and I will try not to buy games that ask for it. Furthermore, achievement awards bother me to. I remember when we used to be rewarded with great unlockables and new endings for reaching certain conditions- now we just gamer points. I guess I don't hate the idea, but for most 360 games, those are your only real incentive.

Maybe I'm alone. I have no trouble paying for downloads for a game I consider to be worth it. Halo 2's map pack was a brainless buy, I didn't care that it was $20, I wanted all 7 maps right away!

I refuse to put these silly restrictions on my buying behavior. If I want it, I'll pay for it. If I don't want it, I'll pass. Gears of War maps are completely worth 10 bucks since its a game that I'll play for months more. Lost Planet's extra maps I passed on since I don't play the multiplayer.

ultimately consumers have the control: if you buy sht content for high prices, it'll only get worse. if you pay decent money for decent content, your purchase will not be ill spent.

Back in the days of the NES and SNES, console games were usually $50 and went up to $80 for RPGs, so I really don't know how paying $60 15 years later is really that big of a deal. But still, I hate microtransactions for crap that would generally be in game already, and I won't do it and I will try not to buy games that ask for it. Furthermore, achievement awards bother me to. I remember when we used to be rewarded with great unlockables and new endings for reaching certain conditions- now we just gamer points. I guess I don't hate the idea, but for most 360 games, those are your only real incentive.

Click to expand...

$80?? What was ever $80? $50 seems to be the highest I can remember. FF3(6) may have been $60, but that's it.

I really don't mind paying for DLC as long as it is something that adds value and doesn't seem like it should have been in the game in the first place.
Oddly enough, Oblivion falls into both categories with 'Shivering Aisles' (awesome) and 'Horses Armor' (beyond lame).

For instance, if the new iteration of Street Fighter that's coming on XBLA has new characters and backgrounds as DLC, then I am all for it.

I had even planned to spend about $10 on new songs for Guitar Hero.
But I thought that $10 might get me 10-15 new songs when I found out how much the DLC is on Guitar Hero for packs of 3 songs, I vowed to never buy any of it.

I think the worst example of greed is Sega, though. They should be busy issuing a patch that would make the fractured Sonic the Hedgehog actually playable. Instead they want you to buy content to unlock a "hard" mode.

As a rule, I think Microsoft should not allow any pay DLC that is only 80K in size.
That is pretty much the size of the key a game needs to open content that is already on the disc. The content was programmed into the game, but they want you to pay extra for it.
I think that is a complete abuse of the concept of "microtransactions".

$80?? What was ever $80? $50 seems to be the highest I can remember. FF3(6) may have been $60, but that's it.

Click to expand...

I remember some places had FF2 and 3 for that much and Phantasy Star 4. Also, the N64 had several titles that cost $80, inluding Wayne Gretzky Hockey (which only made sense because it was one of the only titles released after launch for a while). It was rare, but still, I am just saying that there has been minimal price increases in terms of game costs.

One reason is that not every game developer or publisher can afford to create content and give it away, so rather than have a situation where an add-on for one game may cost money, but the same type of add-on for another game is free, pricing is implemented across the board.

Click to expand...

Well, the problem is that they aren't "giving it away". They would see profit in increased sales of older games. It's just not as sure fire profit as selling DLC.